5 ms·

Right - but "God creates all possible Creations" is true for Spinoza but only in the sense that for Spinoza there is only one possible creation, the one that we

Right - but "God creates all possible Creations" is true for Spinoza but only in the sense that for Spinoza there is only one possible creation, the one that we are living in now, so God creates the only possible creation. As in, there are no possible potential realities for Spinoza---the only possible world is the one that we're living in. And so for Spinoza, God's omnipotence is expressed through his actualization of creation---that is, roughly speaking, it's not just that God could do anything that is possible, it's that God is willing everything that is possible right now, because the only possible way for things to be is the way things are (this is what wokeupabug means when he talks about Spinoza's conflation of God's power and will). This is, to be sure, something that classical theists would quarrel with. --------- For your edit: I don't know about "God & Creation = empty set", it depends on what exactly you mean by that. Classical theists say that all things don't exist independently, but exist in/through/from God (the prepositions vary). What exactly does that mean? Well, a lot of ink has been spilled fleshing out what the relationship between God and creation is, and people have had various ideas on what it is. It seems to me to be an oversimplification to categorize things neatly into theism/pantheism/panentheism without further clarification; these things are complicated. It's been said of Aquinas (certainly a little-o orthodox theologian), apparently, that he's the closest you can be to being a pantheist without being a pantheist.

082349872349872 3y ago
OK, how about this model: God (being a Proper god) could create inconsistent worlds, but will not (and the only consistent world is our own). Would this model be true for both Spinoza and for classical theists? ---- for my edit; the formalisations were attempts to convey (although I agree they're probably oversimplifications) the following general ideas: God & Creation = ∅ (the Creator and the Creation are distinct; nothing is part of both) God & Creation = Creation is equivalent to God ⊇ Creation (the Creation is part of the Creator) God = Creation is equivalent to (God ⊇ Creation ∧ Creation ⊇ God) (the Creation and the Creator equivale: they may be freely substituted in a proof)
- knightoffaith 3y ago
  In general, Spinoza and classical theists do not think God's omnipotence means he can create inconsistent worlds (e.g. he cannot create square circles); omnipotence (for them) means that God can do anything that is logically possible. For Spinoza, he thinks this means that only our current world is logically possible, because if there were other worlds that God didn't actualize, Spinoza thinks this would imply God's lack of omnipotence. For Aquinas, a classical theist, see Article 5 in this section of the Summa [0]. For Leibniz (not a classical theist, but having heavy disagreements with Spinoza), God could create other worlds like Aquinas, but unlike Aquinas, thinks this means that this world is the best of all possible worlds, which is why God actualizes this world as opposed to other possible worlds (Aquinas thinks otherwise - see article 6 of [0]). For your edit, it's not clear exactly what "nothing is part of both" means in the context of God and his creation. I know it seems like I'm being needlessly difficult and pedantic, but the issue is that God is a being unlike any other. So much so that Aquinas would say that my latter statement is technically false - God is not a being, rather, he is the sheer act of "to be" itself. And so spelling out the relationship between God and beings is tricky---what exactly does it mean for a being to be part of/have being through/exist in/have being from something that isn't strictly speaking a being? Those prepositional phrases, when used in relation to God, clearly have a very different meaning than when we use them to characterize the relation of two beings, e.g. a leaf and a tree. That is all to say: classical theists may not disagree with "creation is a part of God" depending on how they interpret "part of"---if this means "creation has its being in God", then this is something perfectly agreeable to them. [0]: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1025.htm https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1025.htm
  - 082349872349872 3y ago
    For the moment, let's put any "part of/containment/belonging to" relation between creator and created aside (in part due to the subtleties you note; in part because I'm more interested in the necessity and possibility of creations, and —despite having slept on it— don't understand Aquinas yet). (in parentheses: sorry for my ad-hoc notation earlier; I've been looking for a survey paper on Algebraic Theology to find out what the conventions are for this field, thus far unsuccessfully) Article 5: I still don't understand properly, but do see that Aquinas' conclusion is that our creation is not the only possible one (and is therefore contingent?) See note about maximum vs. maximal below. Article 6: IIUC: things consist of their essence and their accidents. If two things share the same essence, we say one is greater than the other if its accidents be greater. It is possible to "max out" the accidents, however, and in that case to create something "greater" one must create something with an essence which is better than the original essence (as 5 is greater than 4; natural numbers having no accidents). [I fail to find Aquinas' reply to objection 4 convincing, or even necessarily relevant? As far as I do follow it, it does imply that "greater" is only a partial order, as Mary and created happiness (whatever that may be) are both coatoms in this order: anything which is at least as great as Mary must be either Mary or God, and similarly for created happiness] see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_(order_theory)#Coatoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_(order_theory)#Coatoms As the reply to object 3 shows, this creation may be the greatest possible creation of its essence, but even if God is limited to creating only the "best" creations, he can always create a universe whose essence is greater than that of ours. (here I am imagining that the essence of a universe might be the set of the possible essences within that universe, and the accidents of the universe would be the set of accidents of incidents of those essences, and the set of all the relations between them) So for instance, our universe is the best possible universe with only 7 colours, but God could create a universe with an 8th colour ("octarine" without loss of generality), and then he would have to create a "best possible" universe under those constraints (todo: the maximum universe, or merely a maximal universe?), leaving open the choice of creating universes yet greater. For example (taking a small model because we lack infinite wisdom), we could say that possible universes are grammatical english sentences, the essence of a universe being the words contained in it, and the accidents being the position of those words within the sentence. Furthermore, sentence A is greater than sentence B if it can be formed by adding words to B, without rearranging B. Examples: "See Spot run" is greater than "See Spot"; "The man upon the stair wasn't there" is greater than "The man wasn't there"; "See Spot run" and "Dick and Jane" are unrelated: neither is greater than the other. Essence A is greater than essence B if all the potential words of B are also potential words of A, so "See Spot run quickly" is greater than "Quickly, see!" even though there is a rearrangement, because its essence is greater. From this model we recover Aquinas. Given many essences, it is possible to create the greatest sentence using only those words; {"Run","See","Spot"} has the sole possibility of "See Spot run"; {"fast","he","is","very"} has no greatest sentence, for one can always add another "very"; and {"Dick","Jane","kisses"} has two greatest sentences, for "Dick kisses Jane" and "Jane kisses Dick" are incomparable, however, there are greater creations, for {"Dick","Jane","kisses","passionately"} is a greater essence (with 6 maximal creations). What errors have I made thus far?

082349872349872 3y ago

OK, how about this model: God (being a Proper god) could create inconsistent worlds, but will not (and the only consistent world is our own). Would this model be true for both Spinoza and for classical theists? ---- for my edit; the formalisations were attempts to convey (although I agree they're probably oversimplifications) the following general ideas: God & Creation = ∅ (the Creator and the Creation are distinct; nothing is part of both) God & Creation = Creation is equivalent to God ⊇ Creation (the Creation is part of the Creator) God = Creation is equivalent to (God ⊇ Creation ∧ Creation ⊇ God) (the Creation and the Creator equivale: they may be freely substituted in a proof)

knightoffaith 3y ago
In general, Spinoza and classical theists do not think God's omnipotence means he can create inconsistent worlds (e.g. he cannot create square circles); omnipotence (for them) means that God can do anything that is logically possible. For Spinoza, he thinks this means that only our current world is logically possible, because if there were other worlds that God didn't actualize, Spinoza thinks this would imply God's lack of omnipotence. For Aquinas, a classical theist, see Article 5 in this section of the Summa [0]. For Leibniz (not a classical theist, but having heavy disagreements with Spinoza), God could create other worlds like Aquinas, but unlike Aquinas, thinks this means that this world is the best of all possible worlds, which is why God actualizes this world as opposed to other possible worlds (Aquinas thinks otherwise - see article 6 of [0]). For your edit, it's not clear exactly what "nothing is part of both" means in the context of God and his creation. I know it seems like I'm being needlessly difficult and pedantic, but the issue is that God is a being unlike any other. So much so that Aquinas would say that my latter statement is technically false - God is not a being, rather, he is the sheer act of "to be" itself. And so spelling out the relationship between God and beings is tricky---what exactly does it mean for a being to be part of/have being through/exist in/have being from something that isn't strictly speaking a being? Those prepositional phrases, when used in relation to God, clearly have a very different meaning than when we use them to characterize the relation of two beings, e.g. a leaf and a tree. That is all to say: classical theists may not disagree with "creation is a part of God" depending on how they interpret "part of"---if this means "creation has its being in God", then this is something perfectly agreeable to them. [0]: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1025.htm https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1025.htm
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  For the moment, let's put any "part of/containment/belonging to" relation between creator and created aside (in part due to the subtleties you note; in part because I'm more interested in the necessity and possibility of creations, and —despite having slept on it— don't understand Aquinas yet). (in parentheses: sorry for my ad-hoc notation earlier; I've been looking for a survey paper on Algebraic Theology to find out what the conventions are for this field, thus far unsuccessfully) Article 5: I still don't understand properly, but do see that Aquinas' conclusion is that our creation is not the only possible one (and is therefore contingent?) See note about maximum vs. maximal below. Article 6: IIUC: things consist of their essence and their accidents. If two things share the same essence, we say one is greater than the other if its accidents be greater. It is possible to "max out" the accidents, however, and in that case to create something "greater" one must create something with an essence which is better than the original essence (as 5 is greater than 4; natural numbers having no accidents). [I fail to find Aquinas' reply to objection 4 convincing, or even necessarily relevant? As far as I do follow it, it does imply that "greater" is only a partial order, as Mary and created happiness (whatever that may be) are both coatoms in this order: anything which is at least as great as Mary must be either Mary or God, and similarly for created happiness] see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_(order_theory)#Coatoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_(order_theory)#Coatoms As the reply to object 3 shows, this creation may be the greatest possible creation of its essence, but even if God is limited to creating only the "best" creations, he can always create a universe whose essence is greater than that of ours. (here I am imagining that the essence of a universe might be the set of the possible essences within that universe, and the accidents of the universe would be the set of accidents of incidents of those essences, and the set of all the relations between them) So for instance, our universe is the best possible universe with only 7 colours, but God could create a universe with an 8th colour ("octarine" without loss of generality), and then he would have to create a "best possible" universe under those constraints (todo: the maximum universe, or merely a maximal universe?), leaving open the choice of creating universes yet greater. For example (taking a small model because we lack infinite wisdom), we could say that possible universes are grammatical english sentences, the essence of a universe being the words contained in it, and the accidents being the position of those words within the sentence. Furthermore, sentence A is greater than sentence B if it can be formed by adding words to B, without rearranging B. Examples: "See Spot run" is greater than "See Spot"; "The man upon the stair wasn't there" is greater than "The man wasn't there"; "See Spot run" and "Dick and Jane" are unrelated: neither is greater than the other. Essence A is greater than essence B if all the potential words of B are also potential words of A, so "See Spot run quickly" is greater than "Quickly, see!" even though there is a rearrangement, because its essence is greater. From this model we recover Aquinas. Given many essences, it is possible to create the greatest sentence using only those words; {"Run","See","Spot"} has the sole possibility of "See Spot run"; {"fast","he","is","very"} has no greatest sentence, for one can always add another "very"; and {"Dick","Jane","kisses"} has two greatest sentences, for "Dick kisses Jane" and "Jane kisses Dick" are incomparable, however, there are greater creations, for {"Dick","Jane","kisses","passionately"} is a greater essence (with 6 maximal creations). What errors have I made thus far?